ecp_supervisor_stop_process

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the core action. It does not explain whether stopping is graceful or forceful, whether the process can be restarted later, whether the process definition is preserved, or what side effects may occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing important behavioral and usage context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is minimal but barely sufficient. It fails to mention how to identify the process, what happens after stopping, or how this relates to the supervisor workflow tools. The agent must rely on inference from sibling tool names.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has a single `app_name` string parameter with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what `app_name` should contain or how an agent should obtain its value. While the parameter name is somewhat inferable, the description adds no semantic clarity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Stop a supervised process.' This clearly identifies the action and target, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like start, restart, or remove. The tool name itself reinforces the intent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of ecp_supervisor_start_process, ecp_supervisor_restart_process, or ecp_supervisor_remove_process. There are no prerequisites, context clues, or exclusions mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.